Stop Wasting Everyone’s Time and Quit Already

The rules of baseball are in a state of evolution in 2023, and the college game is no different: This season, the SEC is going to have a mercy rule. If one team leads by 10 or more runs after seven innings, the game is over. Run rules are common in amateur baseball — Little League has had one for years — and college baseball is a friendly interscholastic amateur competition… man, I almost got that out with a straight face.
No, the SEC is the most competitive, highly scrutinized baseball league in the country apart from MLB itself. Even in the upper minors, winning isn’t everything. In the SEC, it just means… well, you know the line. And this league is instituting a run rule?
I’m the kind of stubborn old crank who despises mercy rules, seven-inning doubleheaders, and zombie runners in the higher levels of competition. Leagues where the object is to win, not learn or hang out. And the SEC is definitely one of those. But as a pragmatist, watching baseball in 2023, I get it. In fact, my primary objection to the 10-run rule is not that it’s bad for the sport, but that it gives coaches a convenient excuse to avoid the real solution to the problem the run rule is trying to solve.
You should just be able to forfeit.
Of course, coaches at any level can forfeit games now. Rule 7.03(a)(3) of the MLB rulebook says a game maybe forfeited to the opposing team when a team “Refuses to continue play during a game unless the game has been suspended or terminated by the umpire-in-chief,” which is of interest because I’m not sure I knew the official name for the home plate ump was “umpire-in-chief.” They should refer to the outfield umps during the playoffs as “umpires-without-portfolio.”
But I digress. Teams can have a game forfeited by employing “tactics palpably designed to delay or shorten the game,” according to 7.03(a)(2); “willfully and persistently violat[ing] any rules of the game” after being warned, according to 7.03(a)(5); or “when a team is unable or refuses to place nine players on the field,” as per rule 7.03(b). All of those options sound like lots of fun. John McGraw would’ve had a field day.
The point is, when a team is getting its head caved in, there’s nothing in the rules right now preventing the manager from putting a stop to it. It’s just not the done thing.
And in most sports, there’s no reason for it to be. The reason to forfeit a game is to dispense with the pretense of the contest still being in the balance, and to avoid injury to star players. The other three most popular American sports — football, basketball, hockey — all have free substitutions and a clock. When the game is basically over, but not yet literally over, coaches can take their starters out and have their players dawdle around until the final whistle.
As you might have heard, baseball does not have a clock. It is turn-based. You have to keep going through the motions in order to end the game. (This, as I explained earlier in the offseason, has been a very profitable state of affairs for the likes of Jordan Lyles.) It’s the pitcher who keeps the game in motion, and in a cruel twist of fate — one of many in a sport defined by failure — it is the pitcher who is most physically imperiled by playing out the string.
What managers do, instead of forfeit, is use a position player to pitch. And they’re doing so with alarming frequency:

Look at that line. By going to Stathead and clicking the “Typically a position player” box, I discovered that position players registered 4.44 times more pitching appearances in 2022 than they had in 2017. At that rate, in 2027 we’ll have 3,555 position player pitching appearances in 2,430 major league games. In the early 2050s, we’ll cross the threshold of a million position player pitching appearances per season. The United Nations projects that by the mid-2080s the global population will peak at 10.4 billion. If position player pitching appearances proliferate as rapidly as they have in the past five years, in 2082 every one of those 10.4 billion humans will have to pitch in an MLB game an average of three and a half times per season. This isn’t sustainable.
In reality, a big part of that recent spike is due to Shohei Ohtani recovering from Tommy John surgery, as Baseball Reference counts two-way players as position players. But even counting two-way players, the most common use for a position player on the mound is as a mop-up reliever in a loss. Since the 1994-95 strike, teams that use a position player on the mound have a winning percentage of .143 in 825 games. If you remove Ohtani, Brooks Kieschnick, Rick Ankiel, Jared Walsh, Christian Bethancourt, and Hanser Alberto from the sample, that winning percentage drops to .034 — just 21 wins in 610 games in the past 28 seasons.
Nine of those 21 wins came in 2022, as teams started using position players to get the last few outs in games they led by laughable margins. (Alberto was something of a specialist in this role.) And it doesn’t always work. In 2020, only one team used a position player on the mound and won; the Marlins used outfielder Brett Eibner in the eighth inning while leading by six runs. Eibner recorded the first out of the inning, then walked the next two batters before allowing a three-run home run that turned a laugher back into a save situation.
A couple times a week now, a major league manager looks at the game situation and calls for a position player to pitch. That’s not literally raising the white flag, but we all know the connotation is the same.
So why can’t they just give up the pretense and forfeit?
America, and its sporting culture in particular, is big on hustle. What some people would call the grindset. I’d call it the Protestant work ethic, because if Hell were real I’d give Max Weber an atomic wedgie when I got there. It’s about effort, showing your work, triumphing through adversity. We value the struggle as much as the result, because by linking the two we justify all struggle, both necessary and extraneous.
Most of the time, that’s a good mindset to have in sports. Win the next pitch. Keep working through the pain. Without the ability to continue through struggles, an athlete will never know their true limits, let alone expand them. So yeah, dig deep for that extra gear while rounding third. Grit your teeth and do five more push-ups.
But sometimes, you’re losing 13-1 to the Orioles on a Wednesday night in September. It’s 11:30 PM local time, it’s cold, it just started to rain, and you’re about to hand the ball to your fourth outfielder, who may or may not be able to hit the strike zone because he hasn’t pitched in a competitive game since high school.
That’s not perseverance. That’s eyewash. Just quit already, you’re not fooling anyone.
In other turn-based sports, this is an accepted part of the sport. In cricket — and I apologize in advance if I bungle the lingo, as cricket is a ludicrous sport of which I know relatively little — the captain of a team might forego the last few wickets of his team’s innings (plural, thanks to the people who need extra vowels to spell “color” and “aluminum”) if he believes his team has scored enough runs to win and wants to make sure the full game gets played. (On rare occasions, the captain might declare his team’s innings closed if he’s involved in match fixing.)
Or how about curling? Remember when the American men’s team won Olympic gold in 2018? Their decisive match was technically won by forfeit, as the skip of the Swedish team conceded while it was still possible (though vanishingly unlikely) for his team to tie. That’s just part of the culture of the sport. Everyone knows, more or less, when the game is out of hand and it’s time to put the brooms away and hit the bar. A hopeless last stand in that case isn’t valiant, it’s a waste of everyone’s time. Even with an Olympic gold medal on the line.
Bringing that cultural norm over to baseball would imperil some statistical truths we’ve taken for granted, and all but ensure that some records would never be broken. But those truths have already been shaken by recent rule changes for extra innings; between that and the pitch clock, the “come on, let’s get this over with” lobby is gaining traction.
I doubt we’ll see an MLB manager, or even a major college head coach, concede a game formally anytime soon. That’s why the SEC instituted a mercy rule. Because you can’t just go up to the umpire-in-chief and say, “I quit.” You can only imply it so heavily everyone watching knows what you mean.
Michael is a writer at FanGraphs. Previously, he was a staff writer at The Ringer and D1Baseball, and his work has appeared at Grantland, Baseball Prospectus, The Atlantic, ESPN.com, and various ill-remembered Phillies blogs. Follow him on Twitter, if you must, @MichaelBaumann.
Now that King of the Clowns Manfred has ruined extra innings, position players pitching is, for me, one of the few remaining delightful quirks of this wonderful game. I hope the “mercy” approach remains off limits for MLB.
Declaring the game a Draw after 12 innings (regular season only) would have been vastly preferable to Manfred’s Clownshow, if “something had to be done.”
Deal with it Murrika (and I am American myself), sometimes there’s no winner.
Even better, each team could have an MLB-supplied, rubber-armed knuckleballer who can pitch out the string (if/when the game goes to 13+ innings).
I doubt that there are actually 30 knucklaballers who can pitch at a major league level. Just call it a tie in the regular season.
In 1907 the opening game of the World Series ended in a tie, ties used to be a thing in baseball. Bring back traditional values! Bring ties back to the game!
Or better yet, in the spirit of this article, once the game reaches a certain inning, just allow the home team to concede the tie rather than coming to bat. Would be better than forcing the tie on both teams IMO, and far better than the zombie runner. (But still not as good as the system the sport employed for 150 years prior to 2020.)
Don’t even need 12 innings. I’ll die on the “no extra innings or OT in the regular season of any sport” hill. Just have ties.
After one season, fans will find something else to be outraged about. They always do.
I wholeheartedly agree with (checks username) fartinyourface.
far + tiny + our + face ???
😉
Same here. Once a position player comes in to pitch in a 13-1 game in the eighth inning, I’d rather simply leave and try to convince everyone else on my way out that they should leave, too.
Just a note, I believe Brett Eibner took the mound as a real pitcher in 2020. He had converted from the OF to the mound in 2017 and 2020 was his first time back in the bigs as a reliever.
Funny that the one example of using a position player to pitch blowing up in the leading team’s face wasn’t actually an example of the team using a position player to pitch. Eibner was having a go as a two-way player at the time.
Forfeiting means less advertising revenue, fewer concessions sold, and fewer in-game betting opportunities for MLB’s gambling partners. It’s almost certainly a non-starter.
But think of the boost it would give to the hot takes industry! Why doesn’t anyone ever consider the needs of bloviating sports pundits?
Sports hot takes are a perpetual motion machine. They don’t need fuel.
Not many concessions (esp. beer) are sold in the last inning…..
Buried the lede there – gambling is almost certainly the reason why forfeits will never, ever be allowed.
Forfeits are already allowed; they just don’t happen. And it just becomes something they price into the odds.
Same could be said of the zombie runner yet the league and players both seem to love it. (Please MLB let it finally die this offseason.)
It’s worth noting that (test) cricket is both turn based and time based. You have to get through all of the allotted innings before time runs out for a team to win, otherwise it’s a draw. The upshot is that declaring (forfeiting the remaining batters in an innings) is mostly done to increase the chances of winning— a team with a lead that bats too long risks not having enough time to get the opposing team out and win. Teams that are losing do not declare, and similarly there are no declarations in the limited overs versions of the game
Agreed, but it is even more complicated because test cricket is played over several days and there are real changes in conditions over the course of a long day. So declarations can occur in order to get the other team into bat in bad light or where there is dew on the pitch that can greatly increase the chances of taking a few wickets before the close of play. The other team often uses what are called “nightwatchmen”, players who bat out of their usual order who aren’t really expected to score runs but rather just to survive until daylight the next day.
Teams will also just shake hands when the number of balls and wickets remaining makes it extremely improbable for the trailing team to win, or where it makes it extremely likely the match will end in a draw and there’s no reason to play the last few overs.
Well, it’s not. You’ve got the crew chief and then you have their actual stations during the game. Sometimes the crew chief is behind the plate and sometimes he isn’t, but regardless of where he’s assigned on the field, he makes the final call on things like suspending or ending a game for weather or similar reasons.
Can’t believe a purported baseball writer got that wrong.
Why all the snark? A cursory google search of umpire in chief reveals it’s actually a title. In the dictionary and everything! Do people just get up on the wrong side of the bed and decide “you know what, I’ll be rude to the writer of a baseball blog post!” Seems misplaced.
i would be totally in favor of a similar rule in MLB. having all these position players pitch is just a mockery of baseball. i hate it. i agree with the thought that it is simply a waste of time.
They get paid to play a full game, they should play a full game.
Ticket buyers expect it.
And comebacks exist, including well over 10 runs.
And the biggest comeback ever was just a couple decades ago:
“Seattle Mariners vs Cleveland Indians at Jacobs Field – August 5, 2001
“It’s been almost two decades since the now-legendary game between the Seattle Mariners and the Cleveland Indians but those who have seen the game will probably remember it for the rest of their lives as it is widely considered to be the biggest comeback in MLB history.
At one point, the game seemed just about over with the Mariners holding a comfortable 12-run advantage in the 7th inning, but that wasn’t what was in store that night. Leading 14-2, the Mariners were ready to start celebrating and the Indians were just about ready to concede defeat as well, benching Ellis Burks, Travis Fryman and Roberto Alomar, three of their starters.
However, Cleveland’s bench players had other plans in mind and started the biggest MLB comeback ever witnessed. First, Russel Branyan executed a flawless solo shot. Then, Jolbert Cabrera, another substitute, added two more runs and the game was suddenly starting to resemble a competition.
Before the Mariners could even figure out what happened, the Indians started gaining momentum and behind heroic efforts from both the supporting players as well as stars such as Jim Thome, Cleveland managed to squeeze out an against-all-odds win at 15-14.
What makes this comeback even more impressive is that the Mariners were the best team in the Major Leagues, so stealing such a win against one of the better teams of the decade was an incredible feat on its own, not to mention it being the largest comeback in MLB history as well as the largest deficit overcome in MLB.”
—
Plenty more to look forward to.
https://www.sportsspeakers360.com/blog/biggest-comeback-in-mlb-history#:~:text=The%20Biggest%20Comebacks%20in%20MLB%20History%201%20Seattle,%E2%80%93%20April%2021%2C%201991%20…%204%20SportsSpeakers360%20
The exception that proves the rule — there have been many, many 12 run leads over the course of baseball history, and exactly 1 has been eclipsed.
Over the course of AL/NL history, a team has scored 12+ runs in a full game only ~7% of the time.
I’d be fine with a 15-run mercy rule after the 7th in regular season games.
I’m not a fan of a mercy rule but I think I’d prefer that then a system where a team forfeits the remainder of the game. I don’t consider myself ultra competitive either, but I think a mechanism that ends these things early is better than a situation where you have teams “giving up” on games. Forfeiting because you’re losing is a weird, if totally logical, optic for a competitive sport.
The other thought I had was: would the average paying fan be happy with a forfeit/mercy rule that results in less baseball (at least on an inning basis) or would they prefer to stick around and watch the backup shortstop throw batting practice?
I as a fan would prefer they complete the game. If every fan has left the stadium go ahead and forfeit, but if any fans are there they should play.
Respect for the ticket buyers.
The average paying fan effectively already forfeits, i.e. votes with their feet and leaves, around the 6th or 7th inning in blowout games. I have personally been at sold-out World Series games where I was practically the only one left in my section by the time the last out was recorded, never mind regular-season weeknights. The only fans they’d need to be concerned about are us, the maniacs, the ones who stick around — a constituency MLB now takes entirely for granted.
What if: you can forfeit the game, but then the other team chooses two players from your lineup who then have to compete in a HR derby and if they don’t hit x number of home runs between them they’re ineligible for the next game? That way the fans get some final entertainment and there is a price to pay …
Here’s a thought: the old Continental Basketball Association used to award points not only for wins, but also quarters won.
Couldn’t MLB keep track of “innings won”, and use that as a tiebreaker for playoff and draft order purposes (most innings won get a benefit for each)? Might be enough incentive to keep teams from pitching a position player instead of using one of their eight relievers to finish out a laugher.
That seems silly. What’s next, giving Presidential candidates credit for each state they win instead of just using the total score?
Is there any way to figure out how many times (if any) the team that employed a position player pitching ended up winning the game?
Wikipedia is your friend: six times since 1961. Once both the winning and losing pitchers were position players.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitching_by_position_players#:~:text=The%20only%20MLB%20game%20in%20which%20both%20pitchers,Sox%20outfielder%20Darnell%20McDonald%20took%20the%20loss.%20
“It is rare for a position player pitcher to earn a win or loss decision for their appearance. During the 19-inning Toronto–Cleveland game in 2016, Darwin Barney was the losing pitcher.[30] The only MLB game in which both pitchers of record were position players occurred on May 6, 2012, when the Baltimore Orioles’ designated hitter Chris Davis was the winner in a 16-inning game against Boston while Red Sox outfielder Darnell McDonald took the loss.[31] Six position player pitchers have earned a win since 1961: John Baker in 2014, Rocky Colavito in 1968, Davis in 2012, Brent Mayne in 2000, Luis Torrens in 2022, and Wilson Valdez in 2011.[”
Ty Cobb went 4 innings once and got a (retroactive) save.
It has always been a part of the game.
TV. It’s TV. TV would be pissed if they had to cut the game short
Presumably people are less apt to keep watching a blow-out than a close game, so as the advertising industry shifts to billing based on impressions, they also might not care if the game ends early (if essentially no one is watching, then an impressions-based ad doesn’t bring in much revenue anyways)
This could be true, but I’m sure the advertising is bought/sold/paid for before they broadcast the game.
What about fans at the game? They paid to see a full game. I can imagine the outrage and debris that would shower the field if the home team forfeited. and rightfully so.
“Rightfully so”?
As in, “Those guys didn’t play an inning of this 18-4 game, I’m going to show my disdain and throw my Pabst can and these AA batteries on the field?” Priorities, man.
No, it’s “Those guys STOPPED PLAYING a game I paid money to see played and I’m not getting a refund.” *launches pretzel*
The effort or score during the actual play doesn’t factor into this.
Maybe? Games that reach the point where someone would want to forfeit have probably been pretty long anyway, and the vast majority of eyeballs are looking at something else by then..
I am interested to learn what makes cricket ludicrous where other sports are not considered so.
I really enjoy watching cricket, mostly because it’s apparently the closest real life gets to Calvinball.
I am convinced that cricket games last three days at a time, which absolutely would make them ludicrous if it were correct. My friends who have ties to South Asia have tried to correct me on this point numerous times, pointing out that what I am referring to is known as “test cricket” but I don’t really care. All I know is that the games I hear about go on for days.
Test matches last five or four days, actually, unless there’s a result earlier than that.
Test matches can last 5 days. T20s take less than 3 hours.
Calling something you have no knowledge of “ludicrous” whilst also stating that you don’t care about understanding the details of it is a pretty narrow-minded and unflattering look.
Broaden your horizons! On a global scale, cricket is a more popular sport than baseball – it might just be worth checking out.
I think that the real answer (and by real answer, I mean terribly fake answer) is to go all in on ghost runners.
Hear me out: There is no actual baseball use for win expectancy. My proposal aims to fix this.
The purpose of this rule is to add ghost runners to keep getting the win expectancy back closer to 50%. For example, in the last game of the season, the Twins played the White Sox, and Gary Sanchez hit a 3-run homer in the first inning. The win expectancy for the White Sox went down to 24%. That’s ridiculous. Do you really want to stick around and watch a game with that big of a swing in the first inning? (Okay, I know you do, because you’re reading the comments and Fangraphs, but what about the other less fanatical baseball types out there?).
And then the Twins got up to 4-0, the win expectancy for the White Sox dropped to 17%. And then Jermaine Palacios homered, and the Twins got up to 6-0, and the White Sox’s win expectancy fell to 8.5%. By the end of the second inning, the Twins had scored two more runs, and the win expectancy for the White Sox had fallen to 2%. Why are we even bothering to play the rest of the game?
But rather than allowing teams to forfeit, I say that anytime win expectancy gets less than 25% for one team at the beginning of an inning, they get to start with a runner on first base. When it’s less than 15%, they get to start with a runner on first and second base. And when it’s less than 5%, they get to start with the bases loaded.
Now, this does create a small problem where win expectancy itself should be affected by these things, but there are a lot of smart people out there who can figure that part out. The more important part is: Not a single inning is meaningless anymore! No need to send out the backup first baseman to lob 70 MPH “fastballs.” You always have a chance!
Nah, I think the solution is a baseball version of the Elam Ending for basketball:
Whichever team is trailing after five innings (or the visiting team if tied) gets to bat and keep batting until they have a two run lead. Then, the other team gets as many outs as the trailing team used in the top half of the inning to match the other team’s score (they just need to match the score, since they had the lead going into the “Elam” inning).
You might want to limit the number of outs for the trailing team to say twelve just to keep it from being an endless quest to overcome a huge lead. But otherwise, this might be an interesting twist.
From MLB.COM, biggest first inning was 15 runs. Third biggest inning to 2022.
“15 runs (1st inning): Dodgers vs. Reds — May 21, 1952
Final score: Dodgers 19, Reds 1
This Brooklyn club was potent, on its way to 96 wins and the World Series, where it pushed the Yankees to seven games. Roy Campanella, Gil Hodges, Jackie Robinson, Pee Wee Reese, Duke Snider — many of the names remain memorable nearly 70 years later.
The Dodgers were off to a 20-7 start when the Reds came to Ebbets Field, and after a 1-2-3 top of the first, Cincinnati nearly got out of the inning with minimal damage. While a Snider two-run homer helped Brooklyn go up 3-0, there were two outs when Hodges walked in a full count. Just like that, the floodgates opened. An astonishing 14 straight batters reached base without the benefit of an extra-base hit, and the Reds needed four pitchers to get through the inning.”
Can you imagine being in the Reds dugout after that half inning and taking stock of things? It would feel like a funeral.
“At that rate, in 2027 we’ll have 3,555 position player pitching appearances in 2,430 major league games.”
Well, since position players could pitch for each team during each game, it would technically be 3,555 position player pitching appearances in 4,860 major league games.
I’m not spending $60 on a ticket, $15 on a beer, and an hour on the train just to be told to go home early. If the game is crappy blowout, the least they can do is make Wilians Astudillo pitch for my entertainment.
I hope you don’t watch baseball at a stadium without a dome. There’s this thing called “weather”.
There’s also this thing called “RAIN CHECK”.
If forfeiting were introduced to MLB, I think it would stun people just how often teams would forfeit a game to save a few bullpen arms. The solution to all this embarrassing position player nonsense isn’t introducing quitting, it’s to impose even more strict restrictions on it and force teams to change how they think about pitching development and deployment.
Maybe they can force teams to play at least 7 innings before forfeiture? This would at least prevent teams from bowing out after 5.
It ain’t over ’till it’s over!
Also, I think the hitters would object to losing an opportunity to pad their stats.
Especially the once a week bench players.
I endorse the idea that a team can forfeit. Why not?
Because the players respect the paying customers. And themselves.
This is like a good NPR story: thorough, thoughtful, raising all the relevant questions except for capitalism.
Capitalism: the worst system, except for all the others.
FYI – the “umpire in chief” is not necessarily the home plate umpire, but the crew chief for the crew umping the game that day.
One of the quirks of baseball is that you are literally never out of a game until that final strike. So in a game where there is no such thing as “running out the clock” like with other sports, it’s basically impossible for the leading team to play in a style to maximize their chances of winning that typically also coincide with speeding up the game.
So really it would be best if baseball can find whatever the equivalent of “running up the middle 3 times to run the playclock” in football or “hold the ball for 23 seconds before putting up a shot” in basketball would be to shorten the game within the game parameters. Rather than something so out there like forfeiting or mercy rule.
I don’t know what such a rule would be, but it may be fun to come up with them
That already exists.
It is swinging at every pitch, trotting to first, not stealing, taking out the regulars.
Problem is, those stats matter. And like the Cleveland-Seattle comeback in 2001, the bench players stats matter too.
Those things speed up winning side of the inning. Not the losing side. Put it another way, purposely striking out doesn’t raise win expectancy in baeball, but trying to run out the clock in other sports do. So they’re useless in baseball.
As for stats matter thing, I know in basketball analytics people do throw out garbage time stats, and baseball analytics do have leverage index. It’s just that the public sector of analytics don’t really apply leverage index into performances of non-relievers. But its certainly possible to filter out the “up by 10 runs in 8th inning homer off of position player” fairly easily and I’m sure actual baseball front offices do such filtering
(I’m not sure they actually do, but I agree that they probably should.) The trouble here is that one person says “stats matter” and means “counting stats must be accrued on a roughly fair basis” where the other is thinking “rate stats should be adjusted to reflect only a truly competitive environment.” The traditionalist meaning of “stats” is that each individual “stat,” i.e. Event in The History of Baseball, gets recorded — carved into its own stone tablet or whatever — and many such events have always occurred in very low-leverage situations. There’s no real way to fix that, it’s just a matter of deciding whether we like baseball’s version of garbage time enough to keep playing it out, and watching it.
This entire article seems to miss the biggest point about position player pitching: it is fun!
Especially the comebacks.
I’m pretty sure there were more people who remember being at the Jake for that 12 run comeback than could fit inside. 😎
A left handed homer from Rendon! Second best baseball moment of the year
But I like the weird position player thing. And there’s already some informal stuff, like the home plate ump having a newly-generous strike zone when things have gone on too far. What I don’t like is having players at risk in meaningless situations–an outfielder coming in to play second, any non-catcher subbing for an injured catcher. It is an interesting idea. Will make MLB’s “corporate partners” unhappy.
Forfeits would preclude debates about swinging 3-0 with an insurmountable lead.
But imagine the alternate debate, should you try to score when up by 9 in the 8th if your pitcher has a perfect game or no hitter going?
In one camp we have the, “You’re an MLBer, you should always try your best.”
In the other camp we have the, “It only counts if the game goes 9 innings, what sort of monster are you to deliberately try to end your own pitcher’s perfect game.”
In a third camp we have the, “It should count as a perfect game even if the game is called early.”
In a fourth camp we have the, “This is a problem with this newfangles mercy rule/use of forfieture, they should play the game the old fashioned way.”
You could get decades of debate out of this, better than the DH for pointless arguments.
As a fan who buys tickets (which aren’t always cheap!) a handful of times a year and subscribes to an expensive cable TV package to get my RSN channel, I pay to watch the whole game. To have it suddenly end in the 6-7th inning or whatever because one team scored 10 runs and the other scored zero makes me feel like I’m getting stiffed. I don’t care if a team uses their utility player as a pitcher in a blowout, at least the game is still playing, and I can laugh and joke around with other fans about the rare ocurrence!
There was a Mets/Dodgers game last year, I believe, where Dave Roberts tried to bring in a position player when the Mets were only up by FIVE RUNS! As it turns out this is literally illegal under the new rules that define pitchers for purposes of roster spots. So Showalter came out and objected, and they ultimately gave the Dodgers’ actual relief pitcher, who had not started warming up literally at all to that point, all the time in the world to get warmed up.
Clearest example I’ve ever seen of “you should just forfeit.” Roberts was effectively trying to forfeit anyway, it was his mistake, he absolutely should not have gotten the benefit of that extra time for the reliever to warm up, and if he wasn’t comfortable putting a pitcher in that situation, well, that’s what the concede button is for!
I too watched this game and was indeed shouting “just let him forfeit” at my TV at the time.
When a position player comes in to pitch, the batting team should send up only bullpen pitchers to hit. Seems only fair.
I remember a while back Texas sent Jose Canseco to pitch late in a blowout. Oakland responded by sending Bobby Witt Sr. in as a pinch hitter.
Canseco blew out his elbow and needed TJ surgery.
Every team has “the last guy in the bullpen” who can use the innings and go down to AAA afterwards if necessary.
Let them play.
That’s incredible if true. I wonder if Oakland did so specifically because of where each player started their career.
That didn’t happen best I can tell. This is Jose Canseco’s lone P appearance: Texas Rangers vs Boston Red Sox Box Score: May 29, 1993 | Baseball-Reference.com
Must confess I’m a bit confused by this attempted joke. Isn’t this like getting mad at the doctor because he diagnosed you? By rights, don’t you owe that wedgie to Ben Franklin or perhaps John Calvin?
I understand the premise and agree with it in theory. I just keep wondering, if your team is out of playoff contention, why not just forfeit the rest of the season? I guess at that point it would be an obvious threat to the sport’s integrity and would be disallowed.
*cues up Ted Dibiase’s WWE theme song*
Forfeits are not preferable to position players pitching…at least not when my fantasy team is loaded with hitters feasting on the other team’s fourth outfielder’s 40mph euphus pitches
Little League has had the mercy rule for years.
Nuff said! I’m sold.
Mercy rule and team moms doling out orange slices! Let us institute, post haste.
How much of an effect on league-wide offense has the increased frequency of positions players pitching had?
It’s entirely understandable for the SEC to have a mercy rule. The players most impacted would be pitchers, and no one wants college pitchers to blow their arms out in blowout games. If someone has to get those outs, odds are it will end up being someone left in the game for far too long, where the map says, “Thar be UCL injuries.”
In MLB, dealing with blowouts is part of managing the game, managing the season with professionals who are getting paid to play. One team has to get at least 27 outs for the game to be over, and how that gets done is an important part of how baseball teams are managed.
The hardest thing to do for a manager is to manage the bullpen. And a manager has to do that whether they are winning games or losing games. How teams manage blowouts is important because they can affect later games due to what pitchers may be available. Even position players who pitch may suffer negative effects if they’re left in for too long, or throw too hard.
So changing to allow forfeits in MLB would have competitive effects, even if they were small. Maybe fewer pitchers would end up on the option carousel.
As for me, the way I feel is that blowouts are part of a season. I watch all the innings all the same, whether my team is ahead or behind. Otherwise, you miss savage moments like Dee Strange-Gordon nailing Travis d’Arnaud in the shoulder with a fastball, knocking him down.
I’m pretty sure this is the funniest piece I’ve ever read on Fangraphs. Enjoyed it thoroughly Michael Baumann.
I would hope that, at the very least, if a team elects to forfeit, they are required to honor tickets sold for the forfeited game at a future game, perhaps in the upper deck.
Aside from the obvious reasons (money, athlete egos) why they’re not prevalent, widespread forfeitures would bring serious integrity problems to the forefront.
On the more benign side, it would make tanking strategies much easier to game. Sign a bunch of AA pitchers to major league minimum contracts and rake in the draft picks until the loophole gets closed.
In the middle somewhere are the contracts where hurt or aging players get escalator clauses – I can see less players being able to cash in on the skill of availability.
The thorniest issue, though, are the implications that intentional forfeitures could potentially have on playoff races. At the very least the notion could change the role of postseason spoiler as we currently know it, and at worst could never escape the spectre of 1919 insinuations.
On the more benign side, it would make tanking strategies much easier to game. Sign a bunch of AA pitchers to major league minimum contracts and rake in the draft picks until the loophole gets closed.
Haven’t the Pirates and Royals been employing this “strategy” for years?
I suppose so, yes, but making a tacit admission (ie, constant forfeits) may force MLB’s hand in implementing a salary floor, forcing franchise sales, contraction, etc. Whatever cleans things up for the sponsors and partners.
Every once in awhile perhaps the journalist could think of the fans. I want to decide on my own when to have my.last.beer, when to leave the stadium (contemplating traffic and whether someone has finished my chores at home for.me) and when to throw peanuts at a friend in the third row. I don’t want all that subjected to Rocco Baldelli and his load management schemes. If you’re not enjoying the game, leave. Or turn the channel.
Agreed, a ton of eyewash and injury risk. You want fans interested and sticking around in a blowout? How about holding a raffles that allow fans to pitch. Award them $10K for every strikeout, $1M for striking out the side.
If MLB is going to continue to allow the spectacle of position players pitching in blowouts, at least go full three ring circus.